This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is something which is regularly brought up by 3 of the 5 judges. These are filthy rich, sophisticated parties negotiating at arm's length with lawyers on both sides of the deal. Each of the statements included broad disclaimers noting this is their opinion, it's not the result of an audit and is not above disagreement and encouraging the other party to do their own due diligence (which they did). The trial court clown Engoron and the 2 appellate judges just handwave this away.
And many of the findings of the court around the Trump organization's properties in question, e.g., MarALago, are completely ridiculous.
And in the context of real estate valuations which are notoriously subjective. If a person thought the value of their property was what they could immediately sell it for then I wouldn't currently own it. There are rampant examples, especially when talking about expensive or unique properties, which sit empty and "overpriced" for significant periods of time until a party comes along and pays the "overpriced" amount because they value it in similar ways to the owner.
there are other enforcement actions under the executive law and recently, but they're not in similar situations which matters because of the way the broadly worded law is written, what it was written for, and the purpose of its existence and broad authority
this was pure political persecution where AG James used the government to force a private business to open all their books and communications for the last decade+, combed through them (while leaking repeatedly to the press), and then crafted a ridiculous, tenuously supported case against a political opponent which she promised she was going to harm
AG James uses her position to harm political opponents through the process of being investigated. She issues endless demands for documents and interviews to people and organizations she doesn't like to harm them with famous examples being the NRA and VDARE. The law is no shield to her victims and instead is used to victimize them.
I find it hard to believe people defending this case or AG James are doing anything other than who/whom analysis and motivation.
Yeah, my general impression is that the people defending James could be characterized (at least in this thread) as "partisan hacks." i.e. the starting point of the analysis is that the Tribe must be defended at all costs and then they marshal whatever facts or argument they can to support that position.
In this thread, I've seen numerous arguments in defense of Letitia James which, as far as I can tell, do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. (For example the claim that anyone would be prosecuted (or sued) by the state over what Trump allegedly did.) It's hard to see why anyone would do this unless they had an "arguments as soldiers" mentality.
and whenever seriously pressed, they'll stop responding (or only respond with some short nitpick which is also regularly wrong and misleading) and then you'll see them at some later time attempting the same characterizations they now know are at best misleading and some will be even more confident in their posts
if I made a post and was corrected in any way, even if someone added in important context which changes how it should be interpreted by those who don't know the full picture, I would not show up to a board later attempting to pretend it never happened and I really struggle to believe a person who doesn't is acting in good faith
I don't see this all the time, but I agree it happens pretty regularly.
Right, I think that a lot of the time it's just a slightly more sophisticated form of consensus-building. i.e. you repeat the talking points and arguments of your Tribe, and if enough people do it, it drives out people who dissent (because it's uncomfortable to argue against a chorus of people), which creates the illusion of consensus, which then becomes reality, since most people want to be popular and liked and will just go along with whatever is perceived to be the popular view.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link